Repair-It

So I agree here. And this article was not focused on track performance. But, and this may agree with what you are saying, I did have a problem with M/T's assertion that driving dynamics are extremely important to this segment. I don't think that is the case. I think brand prestige and interior quality may be two of the top criteria for this segment. Oh, aside from cheap lease options of course. I think people would make all kinds of ride/handling sacrifices to achieve those three items. In this class. This class presents the cheapest options to drive something that can pull off a "luxury" image. I am hearing the ATS may be among the most affordable ways to enter this class (maybe not more affordable than the Q50).

Yes I think we are saying the same thing. I would also think this is kind of the bread and butter class for the brands since the sales most likely drop off significantly going up the chain (5 series, 7 series etc.) So this is really important to get right.

I know that we have disagreed on Halo car importance before, but I do think that if Cadillac had an ultra lux flagship, that prestige would funnel down to the ATS if it shares some characteristics that are not track driving dynamics.

Cadillac's current "Halo" car would be either the CTS-V (insane performance but totally wrong for the Lux segment) or the Escalade, which currently isn't getting cars sold, or increasing brand image. They need a flagship car to elevate their badge image.

The CT6 could be the car, but not with that name.

It is definitely the CT6, at least within the current lineup. The Escalade is a (very profitable) side show. It wouldn't hurt to see US sales history for all of these cars. Goodcarbadcar.net would have it.

Yes this class is important in the way that it may cause a buyer who ends up being able to afford much more over time to move up within the brand. But you said yourself the sales are probably a lot less. Therefore, most buyers don't move up - because most buyers can't really afford more; they may already be straining to make their lease payment. A sad reality.

I am reminded of a classic comparison between the GMC Yukon and Cadillac Escalade. Demographic information says that GMC Yukon buyers are quite a bit more wealthy than Escalade buyers. Why? Because the Escalade buyers are looking to project an image - the true money doesn't need to fool anyone - they know what they have.

Yes, I am saying that many buyers in this $399 lease segment are vein and looking to project an image possibly above what they actually have. It makes sense, too. Practical people are happy to buy regular brands which provide the same or better utility for their family. And people who make real money skip right over these and buy real luxury cars.

All that said, I think Cadillac should maintain course, while trying to up their game on the objective areas in which they are weak (i.e. interior or whatever the case may be). If Cadillac were to switch the ATS to a cheaper platform (like based on the Cruze or Malibu) they could very well compete better with a vehicle like the A4. However, they would be crucified due to inferior driving dynamics (suddenly this would matter a lot) and platform sharing. There is even precedent for switching from a more premium RWD architecture to a FWD one - two examples include the 1st gen to 2nd gen SRX and the 1st gen to 2nd gen BMW X1.

Yes this class is important in the way that it may cause a buyer who ends up being able to afford much more over time to move up within the brand. But you said yourself the sales are probably a lot less. Therefore, most buyers don't move up - because most buyers can't really afford more; they may already be straining to make their lease payment. A sad reality.

I agree, but the idea isn't that buyers have to move up (that is obviously good if they do), but that the lower end products inherit some amount of Prestige from the halo. It is kind of like the idea "well that company makes "XYZ" which is really good, and it is the same engineers right?" even if it isn't... You are in the "club" having a Cadillac which is the same brand as the flagship. It is all perception, but in this class that matters more than performance unfortunately.

Yes it's true. If Cadillac is pursuing a luxury/sport image (sport first, luxury second) then having the CTS-V as a halo is exactly where they need to be. Everything is there - the perception of a class leading vehicle, and the platform is actually highly related (not just pretending to be). I guess I question whether they can pull off segment leading dynamics (which is a distinction) while also competing with the ones who offer the top notch interior and prestige. Can it be done? Can they do it?

I wouldn't want to see them abandon all the chassis stuff and become another me-too luxury brand. They already diluted the potential greatness of the ATS-V by offering a me-too engine...

I just don't see how they could pull off being more luxurious than, say, Mercedes. They clearly should have a high level entry though. The CT6 is what they have today but isn't the end game.

Bob wrote:With BMW clearly not interested in creating a driver's car, there is an unmet need in the market for a car with superior driving dynamics. I would argue that Cadillac was making the best effort to meet this need. Unfortunately the buyers in this segment are also very image conscious and even a European brand with a mediocre reputation is somehow better than a Cadillac.

Right. Let's get back to your BMW point. BMW realized that luxury before sport actually gets more sales. Given that Cadillac chased some prior caricature of BMW, should Cadillac continue to chase them away from sport and more toward luxury? Or should they just refine the niche they have created?

There is a long game here, too. It has been said that it takes several (maybe 3) generations for buyers to catch on. So a brand can really screw itself trying to constantly adapt and change to meet whatever fickle buyer they think they are targeting. Better to stick to your guns and play the long game.

I just don't see how they could pull off being more luxurious than, say, Mercedes.

That is the problem. If they aren't at least viewed as equals, then neither will the badge, and they will perpetually be a discount luxury brand trying to catch up. The competition is tough and if they can't show that they are at least equal, then they aren't going to improve perception and get the sales. I think they need to decide their true image, and unfortunately track luxury cars don't sell in numbers. Maybe they need to redefine something.

billgiacheri wrote:That is the problem. If they aren't at least viewed as equals, then neither will the badge, and they will perpetually be a discount luxury brand trying to catch up.

I don't know if that is where they are at. The ATS genuinely placed mid-pack in that 9 car comparison (which had nothing to do with track times - and in a car available for MY2013, a long time ago). Discount luxury brands, then, could be argued as Volvo and Infiniti. I wouldn't place BMW there for obvious reasons (mainly long-standing reputation as a real luxury brand). Jaguar is a weird one. I don't know that anyone would say they don't have enough luxury credibility though.

Obvious brands that didn't even make the cut: Acura and Lincoln.

So it could be worse for Cadillac - and they are moving in the right direction imo.

I will say Volvo and Lincoln are actively working on their luxury image right now. Acura and Infiniti are just floundering.